#parity principle

The Jharkhand High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the state to extend the retirement age of AYUSH Medical Officers from 65 to 67 years, aligning them with allopathic doctors under Article 14. The court ordered notification within four months, preventing the petitioner's imminent superannuation at 65 and granting consequential benefits.

The Patna High Court quashed a Sub-Inspector's dismissal where the inquiry officer doubled as prosecutor and critical documents were withheld from the delinquent officer. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal without a hearing despite a court order, compounding the natural justice violations in the departmental proceeding.

The court ruled that disclosure statements excluded by Section 23 BSA cannot sustain detention absent any recovery or FIR mention. Granting parity with bailed co-accused, it allowed regular bail under BNSS Section 483, stressing that indefinite pre-trial incarceration is impermissible at the early trial stage.

Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that parity with co-accused justifies regular bail under BNSS 483 even for grave offences under BNS and Arms Act, setting a precedent for consistent bail jurisprudence.

Bombay High Court grants bail to two accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act after three years of pre-trial incarceration, invoking the parity principle. The ruling underscores the court's stance on balancing prolonged detention against statutory thresholds for bail eligibility.

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) granted bail to an accused not named in the FIR and without any overt act attributed, relying on the parity principle after similar bail was granted to a co-accused. The court emphasized the lack of incriminating evidence and trial pendency as key factors.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a woman accused under Section 103(1) and 3(5) BNSS, holding that completion of investigation and parity with a co-accused who received bail override the gravity of the offence. This reinforces that Section 480 BNSS’s gender-based bail protection is not negated by the nature of the crime, setting a clear precedent for female accused in complex criminal cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to an accused with four prior criminal records, emphasizing parity with co-accused and the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the alleged weapon. The ruling underscores that criminal history alone cannot justify bail denial when evidence is lacking and co-accused have been released.

Allahabad HC granted bail to the wife and brother-in-law of the deceased in a poisoning case, emphasizing the parity principle with co-accused already released and the absence of incriminating evidence. The court underscored that matrimonial disputes alone cannot justify prolonged detention when the investigation fails to substantiate allegations, reinforcing bail as a right where custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

Allahabad HC grants bail to an accused in a BNS and Arms Act case, holding that parity with co-accused already released and absence of custodial interrogation requirements entitle the applicant to bail. The ruling reinforces that identical roles in an offence demand equal treatment under bail jurisprudence, impacting pre-trial detention fairness.

Karnataka High Court grants bail to an accused in an armed robbery case, emphasizing the parity principle where the petitioner's passive role and absence of direct violence distinguish his culpability from co-accused. The ruling underscores that flight risk arguments based solely on interstate residence are insufficient to deny bail under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Bombay HC rules that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act-failure to present contraband samples before a Magistrate-invalidates the prosecution's case, justifying bail. The court applied the parity principle, granting relief to the accused where co-accused were similarly released, reinforcing strict procedural compliance in NDPS cases.

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which mandates prior notice before arrest for offences punishable up to seven years, applies equally to spouses implicated alongside the primary accused. The court emphasized the parity principle, ensuring similar relief for co-accused already granted bail, reinforcing procedural safeguards in non-bailable offences.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that denying bail to one accused while granting it to a co-accused with an identical role violates Article 14, reinforcing the parity principle in bail jurisprudence under BNSS 2023. The court also clarifies that dying declarations cannot be decisive at the pre-trial stage, impacting bail considerations in criminal proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that landowners in identical acquisition proceedings must receive equal compensation, applying the parity principle under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.